Russia Just Invaded Ukraine

[Seran]

In 2023, if the Republicans retake the Senate and the hold the majority, would you be for or against the filibuster being removed?

Whether Republicans, Democrats or Russia holds the Senate, only simple majority 51 votes should be needed to pass cloture and to pass a bill. Debate is great, speaking filibusters are entertaining, but not in the Constitution. The filibuster can get fucked.

[Parkbandit]

Whether Republicans, Democrats or Russia holds the Senate, only simple majority 51 votes should be needed to pass cloture and to pass a bill. Debate is great, speaking filibusters are entertaining, but not in the Constitution. The filibuster can get fucked.

[Shaps]

More ignorance. Replying to you, because I won't reply to his dumbass anymore.

The Filibuster is designed to protect us, the people. So that one party can't just ram through shit with a simple majority, affecting the whole populous. The system is designed to protect the "minority" (not colors... %s) from abuse by the majority... hence the need for compromise and negotiation.

People are just to fucking partisan these days, they only care about if their "party" wins. It would suck if the Republicans could do everything with only 50, and it would suck if the Democrats could.

Lefties are fucking morons though, and would destroy their own home just to say they "won". It's sad to watch.

The last thing we need is more legislation. Congress only doing shit they all agree on, or at least 60%, is what they should do... not all the divisive issues between 20-50%.

[Seran]

More ignorance. Replying to you, because I won't reply to his dumbass anymore.

The Filibuster is designed to protect us, the people. So that one party can't just ram through shit with a simple majority, affecting the whole populous. The system is designed to protect the "minority" (not colors... %s) from abuse by the majority... hence the need for compromise and negotiation.

People are just to fucking partisan these days, they only care about if their "party" wins. It would suck if the Republicans could do everything with only 50, and it would suck if the Democrats could.

Lefties are fucking morons though, and would destroy their own home just to say they "won". It's sad to watch.

The last thing we need is more legislation. Congress only doing shit they all agree on, or at least 60%, is what they should do... not all the divisive issues between 20-50%.

50 isn't a majority in a 100 vote chamber. If you're gonna squeeze out a fart of an opinion, you should know 51 votes is a majority.

[Tgo01]

I love the "It's not in the constitution!" shit, as if that means anything.

Endless taxes and giving taxpayer money to foreign countries isn't in the constitution either, yet Democrats love them both of those things.

[Parkbandit]

50 isn't a majority in a 100 vote chamber. If you're gonna squeeze out a fart of an opinion, you should know 51 votes is a majority.

So, how are the Democrats in the majority right now? There are 48 Democrats, 2 "Independents" who vote lock step with the Democrats and 50 Republicans.

[Shaps]

So, how are the Democrats in the majority right now? There are 48 Democrats, 2 "Independents" who vote lock step with the Democrats and 50 Republicans.

VP.

[Suppressed Poet]

The founding fathers didn't account for filibuster staying the ability to pass legislation without 60 votes. The founding fathers didn't account for a non elected parliamentarian deciding whether or not to apply a simple majority or 60 vote majority and how many times it could be applied. The founding fathers didn't anticipate an outgoing President would stir up a riot to stop the constitutional ratification of a vote in a bid to stay in power. I'm sure they didn't imagine Senators on both sides of the isle putting party over country either.

Our system isn't perfect, as displayed by our two party primaries. Nor is the fact that money = power, by allowing unlimited PAC monies by both parties to compete to see how many people they can influence.

People are stupid, some folks in Congress are corrupt, some Presidents are too. My method would tailor the issues by electing a traditional president, but indicating the priority issues Americans want. Allowing for a Parliamentary style vote of no confidence if the official ends up being a liar face

I think that without the filibuster, things would be a chaotic mess in our modern times. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart on the political spectrum. Historically we have seen the country pretty evenly split with power changing from one side to another every few election cycles.

Let’s take a random domestic issue that those two parties staunchly disagree on. I’ll choose abortion as an example. So without the filibuster, we would likely see abortion going from totally legal up until the moment of birth to totally illegal at any time after conception. This would change just about every 4-8 years at a time when one party has a majority in Congress and controls the presidency. You really want to see such drastic changes in federal laws frequently in a relatively short amount of time? Is that really good for the country? I don’t think so…I’d much rather see a stalemate than that sort of chaos.

But I do agree with you about corruption, that public service was never intended to be a career, the influence and power of corporate interests being far greater importance to politicians than individual interests, and some other points you mentioned. How about term limits for members of Congress? How about they face the same regulatory compliance in their personal investments as say I do working for a big bank? What about campaign funding reforms? I’m sure there are some topics like this that both can agree to, but for me getting rid of the filibuster is not one of those.

Further…I’m all about limiting the power and reach of our federal government. That is another thing that our founding fathers never really intended for it to be the size and scope it is today. Let’s let California be California, Texas be Texas, and stop forcing shit down each other’s throats on the federal level whenever and wherever possible.

[Seran]

I think that without the filibuster, things would be a chaotic mess in our modern times. Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart on the political spectrum. Historically we have seen the country pretty evenly split with power changing from one side to another every few election cycles.

Let’s take a random domestic issue that those two parties staunchly disagree on. I’ll choose abortion as an example. So without the filibuster, we would likely see abortion going from totally legal up until the moment of birth to totally illegal at any time after conception. This would change just about every 4-8 years at a time when one party has a majority in Congress and controls the presidency. You really want to see such drastic changes in federal laws frequently in a relatively short amount of time? Is that really good for the country? I don’t think so…I’d much rather see a stalemate than that sort of chaos.

But I do agree with you about corruption, that public service was never intended to be a career, the influence and power of corporate interests being far greater importance to politicians than individual interests, and some other points you mentioned. How about term limits for members of Congress? How about they face the same regulatory compliance in their personal investments as say I do working for a big bank? What about campaign funding reforms? I’m sure there are some topics like this that both can agree to, but for me getting rid of the filibuster is not one of those.

Further…I’m all about limiting the power and reach of our federal government. That is another thing that our founding fathers never really intended for it to be the size and scope it is today. Let’s let California be California, Texas be Texas, and stop forcing shit down each other’s throats on the federal level whenever and wherever possible.

I personally don't think abortion would be codified by legislation at their federal level, but it's a great example. Every six years we elect senators, so let's say that the right confluence of events happens to give a party control of Congress and the Whitehouse and they were to make abortions illegal federally. The immediate impact would be felt nationwide and the benefits or ramifications would be felt. As a result, the party responsible for the changes will have a tighter grip on power or would be replaced.

As it stands now, compromise legislation has become increasingly impossible outside of reconciliation. Why? 60 senators have to not only agree, but overcome punishment by their party for breaking party ranks. The last time this happened on a truly monumental piece of legislation was the Affordable Care Act which passed with 60 votes and politicians have been threatening to roll it back for a decade, but haven't. Why? Because it's had such significant benefits to state's that Republicans won't touch it.

Progress or regression is subjective to the beholder, but without experiencing the things that our Congress has been asking for, the American public don't get to make an informed decision on the success of change.

[Sighisoara]

Whether Republicans, Democrats or Russia holds the Senate, only simple majority 51 votes should be needed to pass cloture and to pass a bill.

So what do you think is the point of a bicameral legislature, dumbass?